Board index ‹ God

[Ernest]

Why didn’t god make any irrefutable evidence of his existance?

If god wants people to believe in him them why did he not create something which is irrefutably supernatural. Something which cannot be explained through normal means and can only be explained as god’s work. Something like a floating immovable indestructable obelisk covered in crosses. This would make it so that more people believe in god and thus go to heaven which is what he wants if he exists.

[jimwalton]

I have found that nothing is irrefutable. People have evidences of all kinds, have to process information, and those evidences carry weight but ultimately people react viscerally. They see what they ultimately want to see and believe they are seeing, and their believe what they want to believe. As you know, there are what most of us would call weirdos who still believe in a flat earth, some who believe that the Holocaust never happened and that the moon landings are fictional. There are conspiracy theorists by the millions who see all kinds of things no one else sees or believes are even there. And sometimes the conspiracy theorists are right ("Snowden"), and sometimes they're not. But people believe or deny according to information and viscera.

It's interesting how we all process the same information and arrive at different conclusions. There are people out there who think Obama was the messiah for our country, and others who think he was the worst president America ever had. People think Hillary was perfect for our country and others who thought she was criminal—at best. There are those who think Trump is racism, supremacist, xenophobic, homophobic and a joke, and others who strongly support him.

So what's "irrefutable"? There are plenty of evidences of God. There are plenty of logical arguments for God. There are billions of people who claim to have experienced God. There are also plenty of atheists who see exactly the same data who aren't convinced in the least. We as humans are notorious for justifying our positions. We are also more than quick to use the fudge factor, confirmation bias, and denial as our viscera demands.

There is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but none that anyone who is set on refuting will accept.

[Ernest]

”What is irrefutable?” Something like god appearing and having a friendly conversation with every person on earth. That as close to irrefutable as it gets. Something like a magical bible which is understandable in its entirety by anyone who reads it would be to.

And could you please point me to this evidence.

There are many logical arguments against god. I am not set on refuting him, I would gladly accept him, and I would if there was real powerful evidence(like the examples above), most if not all atheists would.

[jimwalton]

God appearing and having a friendly conversation wouldn't do it. Let me go back to the very beginning. Isn't it astounding that some spiritual beings—who knew God by experience, could see him and hear him, knew his goodness, his greatness, and his power—could rebel against God and abandon their positions (Jude 1.6) in defiance against God? How is that possible? There weren't even any filters (as far as we know) between them and God, and yet they turned against him. It's obvious to me that even a direct experience with God doesn't make it certain that one will follow him. "Irrefutable evidence" doesn't help them be "believers."

James 2.19 talks about demons who believe in God, sure enough, but don't follow him. They know all about him, so we can assume, and yet they don't follow God or "believe in him" in the sense of love and obey him.

We know that the children of Israel who were part of the Exodus got to see spectacular wonders of God's miraculous doings (pretty close to those friendly conversations you might want), and yet many of them were rebellious and unfaithful. We also know that thousands of people got to see Jesus, hear him speak, and watch him do miracles, and yet they didn't all turn to being disciples.

It seems obvious to me that a direct experience of God is not what turns to soul towards belief. Even exposure to him in heaven (as Satan has) in all his glory and power doesn't do the trick. It's weird, isn't it? You'd think if God made himself more obvious, appearing and having a friendly conversation, more people would turn to him, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. What seems to be the truth is that people desire to follow God or they don't, in their hearts and minds, and it has very little (if anything) to do with the evidence of God's direct existence or being. It seems that if people have an inclination towards God, they are persuaded by the evidence, understand belief, and choose to love; if people do not have an inclination towards God, even if someone rises from the dead they won't believe, and all the direct contact with God and irrefutable evidence is sloughed off as inadequate, worthless, and unconvincing.Those who truly seek God will find him, and those who are of a different mind just don't see it no matter how irrefutable the evidence.

[Ernest]

1. Those demons and angels did not stop following god because they thought he didn’t exist. They simply hated him. That separates them from me because I don’t choose not to follow god because I hate him, I choose not to do so because I don’t think he is real. Thats why you can’t use them as an example because the reasons why and and them don’t follow god are so fundamentaly different.

2. While yes it does seem that irrefutable evidence does not always help, it seems obvious, at least to me, that in a majority of cases knowing god makes you follow him. There are few people who believe that the christian god exists but who don’t follow him.
The majority of angels did not rebel. So essentialy while its not a hundred percent solution any solution which is easy to administer, solves the problem in a majority of cases and has no ill effects is a valid solution that is worth trying.

3. If it is the case that people either follow god or they don’t then free will is a lie, I can’t choose to believe in god simply because you either do or don’t. Therefore it can’t be just to send me to hell because I have no choice in the matter of my belief.

[jimwalton]

> Those demons and angels did not stop following god because they thought he didn’t exist. They simply hated him.

You're right about the former (they knew he existed), but you can't know about the latter (they hated him). We are not told why they stopped following him. So it doesn't necessarily separate you from them except on the point that they knew God existed, but you aren't convinced. As far as hate, no one can say. So I'll still use them as an example of "direct experience with God didn't mean they followed him."

> While yes it does seem that irrefutable evidence does not always help

And this is really all that my point was. Your search for irrefutable evidence isn't necessarily going to help you or anyone else. Apparently that's not what turns the tide.

> The majority of angels did not rebel.

We can assume this is true, but no one really knows. We're never given any statistics. It's not a point you can hang your case on.

> If it is the case that people either follow god or they don’t then free will is a lie

Wow, you confused me here. It's exactly the whole premise of free will that some people choose to follow God and some don't. You wouldn't believe because I do or don't, and you wouldn't not believe because I do or don't. You have your own free will to make up your own mind.

> Therefore it can’t be just to send me to hell because I have no choice in the matter of my belief.

This doesn't follow either. As you read the Bible, it's all about that you most definitely do have a choice in the matter. John 3.16 is as good a place to start as any. John 1.12 says the same thing, along with many other texts. Your free will is the deciding factor. God invites all people into relationship. It's up to you to make your choice in the matter of your belief.